If you want to compare TBBT to HPMoR, to avoid any future misunderstandings I would start by saying that I don't agree that the latter really has that much artistic merit. Sure, Yudkowsky is a good writer at the micro level (sentence, paragraph) -- publishably good, even --, but at the macro level he fails more spectacularly than many more inexperienced and untalented writers. If you look at the whole story, it is a mess. He overestimates the reasonable word-count-to-fictional-time-frame ratio by about an order of magnitude, takes the story to where it would never ever take itself, does not appreciate the value of subtlety in conveying one's message through fictional devices, and generally does not seem to be able or willing to think synthetically about the story.

Moreover -- and this is what's most relevant to this discussion -- it lacks the sort of self-awareness that is needed for good comedy. Many of MoR!Harry's flaws and mistakes, other than the ones that are specifically intended to portray one's transition from "traditional rationality" to LW-style rationality (in other words, the parts of Yudkowsky's intellectual past that he himself currently rejects), come off as getting tacit (or not-so-tacit) endorsement from the author, because MoR!Harry is an author avatar for Yudkowsky, and what he doesn't see as wrong with himself, cannot see as wrong with his characters. This is something that doesn't seem to exist in TBBT and other similar works. And it is something that puts them in a category above MoR, at least on this aspect.

Ï wouldn't know about the first part. I feel rather satisfied with the technical aspects of the novel as it is. It keeps me wanting to turn to the next page. If there are more sophisticated considerations that should be taken, I do not know them yet.

As for the latter part, I think you underestimate the author's self-awareness. Harry's failings seem quite obvious to me, and it also seems quite obvious to me that the narration is completely aware of them.

Both points, however, are irrelevant to the discussion; I'm saying that it's possible to achieve funny using a character that is intelligent and rational and acts intelligently and rationally on the information available to them, but fails due to many, many factors, some their own, some not. Not to mention the volountary funny acheived by the character's own effort, wit, and ingenuity.

Yudkowsky's HPMOR does that quite well, and I'd recommend the imitation of that aspect by comedies featuring intelligent and rational people. I don't recall saying anything about the issues you mentioned.

but it's at least equally likely that it's just that you see a group you identify with being portrayed in a way you don't approve of, or in which you don't see yourself, and stand up for your group's public image.

Within the margin error allowed by the proven unreliability of introspection, I contest this argument. I despise humor that is based on laughing at others, regardless of whether it's about people who I indetify with, or people who are identified with me, or whatever. There is a simple reason for that; I regard all of humanity as my in-group, and seeing a human suffer brings me pain. I only find myself comfortable with laughing at another's pain if it is a laughter of solidarity, the sort that you give your child who's just fallen from his bycicle and frets over a bleeding yet superficial scratch ("It's okay, son, you'll get better!" :D). I do have a sadistic streak, and the ability to laugh at others, but I choose not to use give in to it. When I do and I notice I do, I feel guilty, ashamed, and anxious; I feel less worthy as a human being.

If TBBT was written to appeal to popsci fans who like laughing at themselves, it wouldn't treat the mere mention that some of them play D&D or collect figurines as comical in itself. It certainly wouldn't get away with having Penny answer to someone's question "What's the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars" with "It's exactly the same thing" being treated by the narration as if she had just said a great truth, rather than the most blatantly stupid thing I've heard in quite some time.